---

Prejudice process plays a role as one branch of control mechanism to shun arbitrary, primarily in executing arrestment, investigation, prosecution, ransacking, and dismissal, both with compensation and rehabilitation.

The statement was delivered by acting Dir. Gen. regulation, Mualimin Abdi when he testified in criminal code (KUHAP) judicial review trial. According to him, prejudice process aims to enforce law as the best way possible in protecting human rights.

“Therefore, according to the government, prejudice mechanism as determined in Article 77 to Article 83 KUHAP was meant to oversee suspect’s rights,” he said on Wednesday (10/8).

Toward the argument that stated Article 77 letter a KUHAP smeared the uncertainty and discriminative,  government said in opposite, the ruling does not distinguish one to the other, as the ruling gives proper legal protection.

A suspect, may apply whether the prejudice is valid or not. “Aside from it, KUHAP also guarantees suspect’s rights to gain just,’ he added.

Therefore, if the suspect feel something in opposite, it is just a matter implementation problem. If the law enforcer disadvantages the suspect, it will be considered unprofessional conduct.

Furthermore, Government stated that suspect can only be determined by minimum instrument, two sufficient evidences.

In law practice, every case has its own criteria. Direct suspect labeling or be a witness before labeled suspect. It depends on investigator on its effort in gaining two sufficient evidences.

“According to the Government, legal norms induced in Article 1 number 2 KUHAP cannot be interpreted that anyone may be labeled as suspect before any investigation conducted,” he said.

Nonetheless, there flaws as admitted by the government in executing KUHAP, to which was tackled by proposing KUHAP amendment.

Previously, prejudicial application filed by Sanusi has been accepted by South Jakarta District Court. The application has been granted, declaring that his arrestment is invalid. But, South Jakarta District Court refused to annul detention letter and case documents.     

Article 77 letter a KUHAP says:

“District Court has the competence to investigate and decide, as determined in this Acts concerning the validity, of arrestment, detention, and cancellation.”

 

Sanusi a.k.a Lim Sam Che is a suspect of rape and abuse attempt in 2012. However, since being reported, Sanusi always ignored police summons and later be a fugitive. A year later, Victims and Witnesses Protection Agency (LPSK) protected Sanusi as he was a whistleblower for graft case.  

Sanusi allegedly knew a graft flow involving law enforcement officer. The protection was given after Sanusi felt he was criminalized by a lawyer named Lucas, who was intriguing with Jakarta police officer.  Due to that allegation, Sanusi applied for prejudicial verdict in District Court trial.  (Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)

---